interesting article. Mentions CBS will be changing their satellite fronthaul toward their affiliates to h.264 this year. Meaning how they feed the affiliates will go from mpeg2 -> mpeg4.
ABC, NBC, and PBS already do h264 on their satellite feeds.http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/008...--world/222961

hi there! sorry -- I'm wholly tech-illiterate, and don't understand much of what I have been here But I'm hoping my question makes sense, and that someone can respond in REALLY simple terms: I am watching OTA (in London On) and only get 3 channels even WITH an indoor antenna. I'm thinking of buying a fancy big-screen 4k TV so I can watch Netflix and movies in real style. Will I still be able to get my OTA channels? 3 is not much, but I would hate to lose them. Thanks so much to anyone able and willing to help me with some info.

I remember how good 1080p looked on a Plasma TV's with 600mhz refresh rate and you don't see Plasma TV's much any more because they were said to have a possible short life span.

I personally won't buy one, I'll let everyone else buy them and take the chances. This reminds me when 3D was the thing they tried to convince you was something you couldn't live without but they didn't realize, long term eye damage could be a side effect of watching too much 3D content.

This is just like the TV industry, VHS was replaced DVD's and Blue Ray when analog to digital was forced upon us, now they'll going to make you buy more crap you don't need so you can watch and record 4K content, nope not me.

ATSC3.0 takes all those 2.0 features and packs them more efficiently into the standard 6MHz channel slot on the TV spectrum, permitting 4K and ATSC M/H (mobile/handheld) streams. Bandwidth provided by ATSC3.0, utilizing H.265 and OFDM, is ~26Mbps, as opposed to the original ATSC1.0's ~19Mbps using MPEG-2 and 8VSB.

ATSC2.0 is meant to be backwards compatible (ATSC1.0 gear would receive it as ATSC1.0 broadcasts as we see them today) but ATSC3.0 would not, requiring a compatible new tuner/receiver.

In this particular case they offer ABC on their 50.1, and CW on 50.2 at 720p each. That market also has no NBC station.

I can see stations using ATSC 3.0 to offer three 1080i (or 1080p) streams, and increasing their possible revenue streams than using up a large piece of their spectrum for 4K. It would also depend on the networks as well. Will they want to offer their main network feed at 4K to their affiliates. Would a 2K stream be a better option. Would all those new 480i sub-channel networks prefer to upgrade their feeds to 480p or 720p to their affiliates thus increasing the space they take up the stations spectrum.

I think we'll see less licensed stations with ATSC 3.0. But, each station will be affiliated with more networks. Thus, for the viewer, there may be more channels available in HD in their market.

I agree that 4K will NOT be the big mover/shaker with ATSC 3.0 but added HD channels and Datastreams/Datacasting will be.

From what I've read the new ATSC 3.0 would offer up to 6- 1080p streams utilizing HEVC compression, which is fantastic.

Sports and other fast moving video will benefit with 4K video but there are few broadcasters willing to shell out to produce content in that format. The big networks will do BIG sporting events in 4K but I highly doubt we'll see a Phoenix Coyotes vs Calgary Flames game done in 4K for at least a decade, too expensive to produce with not enough revenue on the table. I could be wrong, the League/Leagues could offer a 4K package but it will come at great expense to the consumer.

The other thing that I think should be looked at when ATSC 3.0 gets the green light is the 6mhz assigned to each channel.

It's no secret that the FCC wants to do a re-pack, and sell off the upper end of the UHF spectrum. I have read a few articles about some tests concerning the sharing of a 6mhz block by two stations. That would give them each 3mhz.

From the article I read concerning the station in Cleveland running on a ATSC 3.0 test, with a 6mhz block, they manage to get about 26Mbs. And 15.7Mbs was assigned to the 4K stream.

Now simple math, divide that 26Mbs by two for sharing the 6mhz block and you get 13MBs per 3mhz. Now I'm no expert on this, and simply trying to understand this possible future ATSC 3.0 and sharing of the 6mhz block, tells me that 4K would have a problem being used. Or a station would be stuck only offering a 4K, and no sub-channels. Worse yet, a station assigned to sharing is stuck when its main network feed starts to get offered in 4K, and the station can't provide the 4K because of contracts it has to offer other HD channels on it's 3mhz.

Now this is just pure speculation on my part, and simply trying to point out that a re-think of the 6mhz assignment block may be in need. Lets say for the sake of arguement that the sell off happens, and we end up with Channels 2 - 36 (6mhz blocks) for TV. We would end up loosing 38-51. This totals 14 possible channels lost. And as I pointed out, sharing 6mhz blocks by two stations, would effect any possible use of 4K. And if there is no sharing, and each station gets a 6mhz block, then there is a limit to competition from smaller stations. No room for them in some markets. Or placing stations too close to each other, and thus effecting reception.

But, what if we end up dividing the blocks into 5mhz with ATSC 3.0. Just a very rough calculation on my part gave me TV channel assignment 2-41 (5mhz), using the same space of channels 2-36 (6mhz).
If ATSC 3.0 can get us 26Mbs at 6mhz, then we should be able to get 21.6Mbs with 5mhz blocks. This would still allow stations the ability to offer 4K if the network they are with goes that route. But, also room for a HD sub-channel. The increase in the number of channels available for license would increase as well. Leaving smaller stations (by that I mean stations not affiliated to the major networks), to stay on the air. I do believe some consolidation will occur with a re-pack, but not as severe if the assignment blocks are at 5mhz each.

Lets also look at it another way. If we remain with 6mhz blocks with ATSC 3.0, and a station can run a possible 5 HD_1080p streams, then just a single station can offer all the major US networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, CW). Now what happens in a market that now has three stations offering all those networks. Do the other two sign off. Shutdown? What happens to the local news those stations offered in their market. No longer available? But one station affiliated to the 5 main networks, offers only one local point of view news. Is this healthy for any market? Assigning a smaller block of 5mhz would put a limit on one station offering all the networks. Some will have to sign up with another local station. Thus keeping another local news source available.

Now everything I wrote here is speculation. But, something that might need to be considered with ATSC 3.0, and a possible re-pack of the TV frequency.

Remember, the 6mhz assignment per block was based on analog needs. Does it still need to be that if we are going to have to change the system once again when ATSC 3.0 kicks in.

I haven't seen anything re 3 MHz assignments. When stations "share" a channel, they mean that multiple data streams are carried in the SAME 6 MHz Channel assignment.

There is a serious DISADVANTAGE to going to smaller bandwidth assignments, such as 3 MHz....which is why MOST of the World has gone to 7 MHz and 8 MHz channel assignments. Statistical Multiplexing is frequently used TODAY on SAT, CATV and OTA systems. In a well managed StatMux, some of the COMPOSITE data rate (e.g. 38 Mbps for CATV, 19.4 Mbps for OTA and now 26 Mbps in ATSC 3.0) is allocated to FIXED data streams, such as cyclic Software Updates to attached devices (that don't have I-N connections) and other revenue generating data streams, such as perhaps a subscription Stock Market Ticker service. The REMAINDER of the data stream can be allocated "AS NEEDED" across ALL of MULTIPLE Video Data Streams so that when one or more video program has "Action on the Field" requiring additional data rate, it is available to the program that most NEEDS it.

In the fol. TSReader Example, TWO 1080i and ONE 480i Video Programs are being carried....you can see the instantaneous data rate allocation in the Green Line Chart....the line at the bottom are the 3.3 Mbps of "NULL Packets" that were UNUSED, in excess of what the collective video programs needed:SI Parsing by TSReader 2.8.47a
Note the the ALLOCATED data rate in the Summary section is actually a MAX value, arbitrarily set to a very high number, so the StatMux is the limiting factor rather than Allocating too LOW a Max Data Rate.

In the fol. TSReader Example, there is ONE 720p and several 480i programs in addition to ATSC A/153 (MPEG4) sub-channels for Subscription Starz and Shotime and "Airbox" programs (which I'm guessing are ALSO using the "shared" StatMux capacity)..

FYI: RabbitEars maintains a list of stations carrying TWO or more HD channels if you want to look at more examples:RabbitEars.Info

The higher the Bandwidth Assignment, the more TOTAL Data Rate Capacity is available to be allocated across all Video Programs....which means that there will be fewer and fewer occasions that TWO or more Video Channels "NEED" more Data Rate capacity than is available. Hence higher Data Rate CATV and ATSC 3.0 systems can successfully pack MORE HD Channels than current ATSC....esp when using TWICE as efficient MPEG4 coding....or FOUR times as efficient HVEC coding expected in the future.......and 8 MHz Bandwidth systems are even better prepared to handle a larger number of HD Channels.

I haven't seen anything re 3 MHz assignments. When stations "share" a channel, they mean that multiple data streams are carried in the SAME 6 MHz Channel assignment.

Exactly - no need to carve up the channel allotments any smaller when data stream multiplexing can slice and dice each 6MHz slot so well. I've never come across the 3MHz idea before either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackburst

Remember, the 6mhz assignment per block was based on analog needs. Does it still need to be that if we are going to have to change the system once again when ATSC 3.0 kicks in.

Keep in mind that soooooo much filtering in place today in passive signal gear is done according to 6MHz channel notches, and the stated goal of ATSC standards is to be transparent to such home and professional gear, so I cannot imagine the authorities forcing all that equipment to be obsolete. The 6MHz scheme is here to stay.

I wasn't actually looking at the 3mhz. My point was the actual sharing of the 6mhz block by separate licensed stations. You do understand that though technically this might make sense, business people and corporations tend to want a well defined space of operations, staking their limits to the shared 6mhz block. Which of course effects the value of the licensed station, and the sale value as well. Sharing a block means defining the shared space by each party. It was a simple divide by two. So I was making the point that sharing a 6mhz block might not be a good idea.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

OR

Log-in

User Name

Password

Remember Me?

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.